Self-determined Learning Theory

Construction, Verification, and Evaluation

Deirdre K. Mithaug, Martin Agran, James E. Martin, Michael L. Wehmeyer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN: 9780805836981
• eBook ISBN: 9781135654443
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This volume brings together four semi-autonomous bodies of research (choice, self-determination, self-regulation, and self-management) to form a new theory of self-engaged learning entitled, Self-Determined Learning Theory. This theory explains why and how students self-engage. It identifies the factors that give students the sense of control over their learning that is needed for sustained, adaptive, and ultimately successful learning. It begins by describing the characteristics of disengaged learners, then describes and illustrates self-determined learning theory within both normal and special populations. It then examines the theory's predictive value across several special population contexts and then concludes with a critique of the theory's credibility and worth.

Divided into three sections--theory construction, theory verification, and theory evaluation--this volume is organized using the four steps of a previous book, Learning to Theorize: A Four Step Strategy. Step 1 defines a problem of not understanding something as discrepancy between what is known and not known about a circumstance. Step 2 searches for information and explanations to change the condition of not knowing into a condition of knowing. Step 3 evaluates the credibility and worth of the explanation constructed in Step 2. Step 4 adjusts existing beliefs so they are consistent with the new theory.

Although aimed primarily at leaders in special education, it should also appeal to researchers and scholars in psychology, educational psychology, and school psychology who are interested in the applications of self-regulated learning theory--in this case to special populations.

I

THEORY CONSTRUCTION

1

Understanding the Engagement Problem

Dennis E. Mithaug
Deirdre K. Mithaug
Martin Agran
James E. Martin
Michael L. Wehmeyer

In this book we introduce a theory of learning that explains why learning maximizes during self-engagement. We review past research on factors associated with engagement and original research on the credibility and worth of a theory that predicts learning will maximize when engagement produces optimal adjustments to new challenges. The theory explains that this happens when learners believe their opportunities for gaining something from a circumstance are valuable and manageable and when they know how to regulate their expectations, choices, and actions to produce results they expect from the circumstance. Then they engage the situation to optimize their adjustments and maximize their learning. The theory also predicts that as students acquire the knowledge and skills they need to deal with new situations, they experience sufficient control over the results of their efforts to believe subsequent opportunities for gain from the situation will give them more of what they need and want to know. This is how they become self-determined learners.

Unfortunately, self-engagement and learning like this are rare in school, as the following examples illustrate. Example A presents a general education classroom version of the problem as described by Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (1996). Example B presents the special education version of the problem as described by Sands and Wehmeyer (1996).

EXAMPLES OF LEARNERS

Example A: Disengaged General Education Learners

Calvin, a bright sixth grader who has never experienced much success in school, has dreamed of achieving better and even thinks he may try to be the first person in his family to graduate from high school. Considering his family’s low level of education, it is not surprising that Calvin has not developed many essential study skills and has many unfortunate habits, such as procrastinating, skimming reading assignments, cramming for tests at the last minute, and writing in a haphazard manner. He has a low sense of self-efficacy about improving his grades in school and generally appears poorly motivated in class.

Maria is an eighth-grade student who enjoys a wide social network. She diligently completes her work but only in a superficial way. Although she tries hard in school, schoolwork is less important to her than her friends, and as a result she gets only average grades. She is very popular among her classmates, and she usually “studies” daily with friends—sharing answers to math or science problems and reading her assignments cursorily between extended discussions about the day’s events. Maria prepares minimally for tests, usually cramming the night before the exam, and her writing skills are a year below grade level. She has only a moderate amount of self-efficacy about doing well academically and tries not to think much about the future. (Zimmerman et al., 1996, pp. 6–7)

Example B: A Disengaged Special Education Learner

Carey is a sociable sixth grader who lacks determination in all that she does. She is a poor student, dislikes school, avoids homework, and spends much of her time watching television and hanging out with friends. She dreams about what she might be when she grows up but lacks confidence that she will ever become what she wants to be. Moreover, she has no idea what steps are necessary to pursue her dreams. When asked what grades she expects to earn each semester, she gives inconsistent answers. Sometimes she says she will get all A’s, and other times she says she expects to fail all her courses. This is typical of how she looks at the future. Her goals are either so high she cannot achieve them or so low she is certain of achieving them. Either way, she has no intention of changing what she does or how she thinks. This is because when she sets expectations that are too high, no amount of planning and working will make any difference, and when she sets expectations that are too low, any amount of planning and working will be effective. Consequently, there is never any connection between what Carey expects and what she does. Frequently, this causes her to feel depressed and helpless because she depends so much on external events or people for direction and stimulation. She doesn’t know what to improve about herself or how to improve herself, and she doesn’t know how to enhance her opportunities. She is a poor self-regulator, too. Carey lacks self-determination. (Mithaug, 1996, p. 148)

Students like Maria, Calvin, and Carey don’t appear to have discovered the intrinsic rewards of controlling their own learning. As a result, they never have that “flow” experience Mihali Csikszentmihalyi described for people whose engagement in self-imposed challenges enhances their sense of control over their circumstances.

The optimal state of inner experience is one in which there is order in consciousness. This happens when psychic energy—or attention—is invested in realistic goals, and when skills match the opportunities for action. The pursuit of a goal brings order in awareness because a person must concentrate attention on the task at hand and momentarily forget everything else. These periods of struggling to overcome challenges are what people find to be the most enjoyable times of their lives.… A person who has achieved control over psychic energy and has invested it in consciously chosen goals cannot help but grow into a more complex being. By stretching skills, by reaching toward higher challenges, such a person becomes an increasingly extraordinary individual. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 6)

Self-determined learning theory identifies the conditions that provoke students like Calvin, Maria, and Carey to engage the learning challenges described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). It explains the why and how of self-engagement. Students engage themselves when they have optimal opportunities to choose what they will do and how they will do it—the why factor. And they stay engaged to the extent they adjust their expectations, choices, and actions effectively enough to produce the gain they expect from those opportunities —the how factor. In other words, students get and stay engaged to the extent they adjust optimally to opportunities that provoke them into adapting to new and challenging circumstances. This applies to all students, with or without disabilities and across cultures and time. The theory predicts that students who are motivated to adapt to challenging opportunities will be like Doris in example C. They will enjoy learning enough to become life-long achievers.

Example C: An Engaged Learner

Doris is a bright… sixth-grade student who has learned to regulate her behavior to get what she wants over the long haul. She is an experienced achiever. She is determined to do well in school because she knows that good grades will help her get what she wants after she graduates. Doris also knows what she can do and how to compensate for what gives her difficulty. She sets goals that are consistent with her needs and interests, strives to achieve them, and then experiences great satisfaction when she makes progress. Most important, Doris expects to achieve goals that are just beyond what she achieved in the past, which often requires more work and better methods of producing gain than what she has done previously. No one tells her what goals she should set or how she should meet them, although she often seeks advice when she gets confused and does not know where to begin. Doris has the habit of performing at or near her capacity in most of what she does. After meeting one goal she sets a slightly more ambitious goal the next time. This increases her capacity and improves her opportunity to act in self-determined ways. (Mithaug, 1996, p. 147)

We know much about students like Doris who pursue new opportunities to achieve all they can. These students believe they are causal agents in dealing with their circumstances. They enjoy the challenge of learning, and they persist even when their pursuits present difficulties. Students like Doris thrive on having choices about what and how to adapt in order to learn because then they can regulate their actions to take advantage of their strengths and to compensate for their weaknesses. They are free to adjust their expectations to new situations and to set goals that are consistent with what they can do. And when students are motivated to produce results that are important to them, they strive to develop plans that will help them learn as much as they can, which leads them to believe their decisions and actions are the cause of their success or failure. Consequently, when they fall short of expectations, they know what to do to improve, and when they get results they want they feel in control because they know what they did to succeed. Finally, when students’ feelings of control persist their experience of engagement is similar to that described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) as “flow.”

This chapter identifies the antecedents to engagement that are likely to discourage students from becoming self-determined learners like Doris. One of these is the learning opportunity that can either motivate or discourage students who face challenges to adjust in order to learn. The evidence suggests that a student’s ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Serise Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Part I Theory Construction
• Part II Prediction Verification
• Part III Prescription Verification
• Part IV Theory Evaluation
• Author Index
• Subject Index